Clopidogrel 150 vs. 75mgday-1 in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis

13Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background:Whether an increase in the daily oral maintenance dose of clopidogrel may improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still debated. Objectives:This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the relative effect of a 150- vs. 75-mg daily maintenance dosage of clopidogrel on clinical and laboratory end-points in patients undergoing PCI. Methods:We searched electronic and printed sources (up to 14 December 2010) for both randomized control trials and observational studies satisfying the predefined inclusion criteria. Results:We retrieved 12 reports of studies including a total of 23814 patients. Clopidogrel, 150mgday-1, was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiac and/or cerebrovascular events (odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.94), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86), target vessel revascularization (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.62) and stent thrombosis (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.77) and decreased adenosine diphosphate-induced maximal platelet aggregation. However, as compared with 75mgday-1, the 150-mg daily maintenance dosage significantly increased the risk of minor bleeding (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.08-1.36). Conclusion:As compared with the currently recommended 75-mgday-1 maintenance dosage of clopidogrel, the 150-mgday-1 dosage can reduce major adverse cardiac and/or cerebrovascular events but may increase the risk of minor bleeding. © 2011 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hao, P. P., Zhang, M. X., Li, R. J., Yang, J. M., Wang, J. L., Chen, Y. G., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Clopidogrel 150 vs. 75mgday-1 in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 9(4), 627–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04216.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free